Ask Question

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one non-obvious trait: unanswered questions are 'logged as missing information for future retrieval', i.e. a write side effect. It does not say whether the call is read-only overall, whether the logging is visible to the caller, or anything about latency, auth, or rate limits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the core action ('Ask the librarian') is front-loaded before the behavioral clause. Nothing redundant, though the wording is slightly cryptic rather than maximally clear.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the description covers the basic request/response plus fallback behavior. However, with no annotations and no usage guidance, an agent still lacks clarity on the write side effect's implications and how this tool relates to search_notes.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single 'question' parameter, so the description should compensate but largely does not — no guidance on phrasing, length, or whether the question should be self-contained. It only implies the parameter is a natural-language question answered from the vault.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a concrete verb (ask) and names the domain (the librarian / the vault), and the second clause states exactly what the tool produces: an answer or a logged miss. It is distinguishable from the note CRUD siblings, though the 'librarian' metaphor leaves the backing service somewhat opaque.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no comparison to search_notes, the obvious alternative for retrieving vault content. An agent must infer that ask_question is for open questions rather than lookups; nothing states that distinction or any prerequisite.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.